ArticlePublisher preview available

Antagonistic but Holier Than Thou: Antagonistic People Think They Are (Way) Better-Than-Average on Moral Character

July 2024
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

DOI:10.1037/per0000685

Authors:

Braden Hall

University of Alabama

Joshua Tripp Lambert

University of Alabama

Charlotte Kinrade

Kennesaw State University

Show all 5 authorsHide

Although clinical psychologists have long speculated that antagonistic individuals may lack insight into their moral deficits, some evidence has shown that more (vs. less) antagonistic people view moral traits as somewhat desirable and rate themselves as lower on moral characteristics (suggestive of some insight). But, we suggest that antagonistic people’s struggles with insight can be detected as part of a basic social–cognitive bias that entails believing the self is better-than-average on socially desirable characteristics (i.e., the “better-than-average effect” [BTAE]). Specifically, although antagonistic people may rate themselves lower on moral characteristics than less antagonistic people, they may still believe that their relative standing on moral characteristics compares favorably to others. Participants (N = 515) completed indicators of the Dark Tetrad (D4) constructs (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and sadism) and rated themselves in relation to others on moral and immoral character traits. Overall, participants exhibited very large BTAEs (i.e., rated the self as “better-than-average” on moral character traits); only psychopathy and sadism consistently related negatively to BTAEs, but people with elevations in each D4 construct (or any D4 facet) still exhibited large-to-very-large BTAEs. Such antagonistic participants viewed themselves as possessing substantially greater amounts of moral than immoral character traits but viewed average others as possessing an equal mix of these traits.

A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.

Learn more

Content available from Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and

Treatment

Antagonistic but Holier Than Thou: Antagonistic People Think They Are

(Way) Better-Than-Average on Moral Character

William Hart, Braden T. Hall, Joshua T. Lambert, Charlotte K. Cease, and Danielle E. Wahlers

Online First Publication, July 29, 2024. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000685

CITATION

Hart, W., Hall, B. T., Lambert, J. T., Cease, C. K., & Wahlers, D. E. (2024). Antagonistic but holier than thou:

Antagonistic people think they are (way) better-than-average on moral character.. Personality Disorders:

Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000685

In the Service of the Prince: A Meta‐Analytic Review of Machiavellian Leadership

Article

Mar 2025
J ORGAN BEHAV

There is an ongoing debate among organizational scholars as to whether Machiavellianism is a liability for leaders. Some scholars argue that Machiavellian leaders are likely to fail due to their toxic orientation toward followers, while others suggest that Machiavelli's teachings constitute a set of best practices. To balance these perspectives, we blend socioanalytic theory and mimicry‐deception theory to argue that risk detection and political behavior are necessary adaptations for leaders but that Machiavellianism is a special case of their manifesting in predatory tendencies. We further argue that these leaders often avoid social sanctions as others know that betrayal is a legitimate risk in business and politics and so resonate with their vision. To test our predictions, we meta‐analyzed effects of leader Machiavellianism on 15 criteria across 163 samples and 510,925 participants, supplementing bivariate results with tests of incremental validity and conditional effects involving time, personological moderators, and curvilinearity. Results suggest alarmingly high associations with undesirable leadership styles and follower outcomes, but they also suggest that these leaders' success is conditional, resulting in their being neither rewarded nor penalized on average. We conclude by discussing implications of our conceptual update on leader Machiavellianism for future research.

Welcome to the Jangle: Comparing the Empirical Profiles of the “Dark” Factor and Antagonism

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023
ASSESSMENT

This study examines the congruency between the recently introduced Dark Factor of Personality (D) and Antagonism (A; low Agreeableness) from the Five-Factor Model of personality. Using two samples (Ns of 365 and 600), we examined simple zero-order correlations between D and A (rs of .69 and .64). In addition, we used a range of relevant external criteria (e.g., antisocial behavior, aggression, domains and facets of personality, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM] personality disorders [PDs], impulsivity, and political skill) to examine the degree of absolute similarity in the relations that D and A bear to these criteria. These similarity coefficients were then compared with the similarities produced by measures of constructs different from D and A but similar among themselves (i.e., psychopathy and narcissism in both samples, plus depression in Sample 1). The degree of similarity between D and A (rICCs = .96 and .93) is consistent with what is observed between other measures of the same construct. We conclude that D and A yield largely identical empirical correlates and thus likely represents an instance of the jangle fallacy. We believe that future efforts would be better spent furthering the literature around the well-established Agreeableness versus Antagonism construct.

Understanding Individuals’ Desire for Change, Perceptions of Impairment, Benefits, and Barriers of Change for Pathological Personality Traits

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021

Despite clinical theory suggesting that individuals are largely unaware of personality-related problems (Gallrein et al., 2013; Oltmanns & Powers, 2012); work in this area shows that individuals possess insight into their pathological traits and the impairment they may cause. Individuals generally dislike pathological traits and desire change in the direction of greater adaptivity (Lamkin et al., 2018; Miller et al., 2018). Individuals may also be able to make small, intentional changes in some personality domains (e.g., neuroticism; Hudson & Fraley, 2015; Hudson & Roberts, 2014) but not others (no positive change in conscientiousness or agreeableness). It remains unclear why many individuals exhibit relatively little change in their pathological traits (e.g., antagonism), given their awareness of the problems these traits cause and their desire for change. The goal of the present study was to explore the relation between personality disorder (PD) traits and desire for change, perceived impairment and benefits, and barriers to change among an online sample (N = 497). Findings suggest that most individuals were uninterested in changing their trait levels; however, individuals with elevated PD traits were more interested in change than those with lower levels. Pathological traits were generally perceived as impairing rather than beneficial; however, mean level analyses revealed similar levels of perceived impairment and benefits for those relatively high on antagonism. Individuals reported that personality change was stymied in part because it was too hard, they were unmotivated to make the changes, or they did not know how to go about making such changes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Development and validation of the good and evil character traits (GECT) scale

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2021

The present study describes the development and validation of the good and evil character traits (GECT) scale. A set of 3,614 good and evil moral character descriptors (i.e., moral and immoral character traits) was selected from a dictionary of contemporary Chinese language and daily life expressions and ultimately condensed into 55 items. Then, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and parallel analysis (PA) were conducted to explore the structure and final items of the GECT with sample 1 (n = 350), resulting in 21 good items and 32 evil items. After that, in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with sample 2 (n = 350), the resulting factor structure was confirmed for the 53‐item scale (Study 1). Additionally, evidence of validity based on correlations with Honesty‐Humility and Dirty Dozen was demonstrated (Study 2). The implications of our findings for the assessment of good and evil characters and further theoretical exploration are discussed.

We Are Who We Thought We Were: Confirming One’s Own Antagonism Levels

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2021

Although many processes might contribute to the self-perpetuating nature of antagonistic personality, we proposed and tested the “antagonism-confirmation” perspective on this phenomenon. This perspective states that antagonistic personality is based in tendencies to confirm (vs. disconfirm) the self’s beliefs about its personality. Importantly, this explanation uniquely predicts that antagonism-related personality constructs should relate to strategically adopting behaviors that vary on only their signification of higher or lower antagonism levels (and nothing more). In apparent privacy, nonclinical participants completed a color-gazing task, wherein antagonistic people ostensibly see colors become more (more-intense condition) or less intense (less-intense condition) while gazing at them. Consistent with the antagonism-confirmation perspective, antagonism-related personality constructs related to perceiving colors as turning more intense in the more-intense (vs. less-intense) condition. These effects could not be attributed to demand and occurred among a subsample of participants that indicated providing completely authentic responses. Furthermore, participants higher in antagonism-related personality constructs reported a greater likelihood of possessing antagonistic characteristics and that these characteristics were more beneficial; mediation evidence suggested that these reports were influenced by their confirmatory responding on the color-gazing task. Antagonism-confirmation tendencies might partly account for why antagonistic personality persists; broadly, the findings highlight the critical nature of identity management as a feature of antagonistic personality.

The Primacy of Morality in Impression Development: Theory, Research, and Future Directions

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2021
ADV EXP SOC PSYCHOL

Over the past few decades, two-factor models of social cognition have emerged as a dominant framework for understanding impression development. These models suggest that two dimensions-warmth and competence-are key in shaping our cognitive, emotional, and behavioral reactions toward social targets. More recently, research has jettisoned the warmth dimension, distinguishing instead between sociability (e.g., friendliness and likeability) and morality (e.g., honesty and trustworthiness) and showing that morality is far more important than sociability (and competence) in predicting the evaluations we make of individuals and groups. Presenting research from our laboratories, we show that moral categories are central at all stages of impression development, from implicit assumptions, to information gathering and to final evaluations. Moreover, moral trait information has a dominant role in predicting people's behavioral reactions toward social targets. We also show that morality dominates impression development, because it is closely linked to the essential judgment of whether another party's intentions are beneficial or harmful. Thus, our research informs a new framework for understanding person and group perception: the Moral Primacy Model (MPM) of impression development. We conclude by discussing how the MPM relates to classic and emerging models of social cognition and by outlining a trajectory for future research.

Uncovering the Structure of Antagonism

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2020

Despite the advances in our understanding of the structure of personality and psychopathology (see Kotov et al., 2017), less attention has been paid to empirically examining their underlying facet structure. To gain a more nuanced understanding of the structure of personality, it is important to identify empirically derived lower order structures of these trait domains; thus, the present study sought to examine the structure of antagonism as represented by items from commonly used measures of pathological personality traits. Participants were recruited from a large, southeastern university (N = 532) and completed 234 antagonism items selected from seven measures of pathological personality traits. Criterion variables measuring interpersonal adjectives, aggression, substance use, depression, and anxiety were also collected. A series of factor analyses were conducted to examine the structure of antagonism at a range of specificities. A seven-factor solution emerged as being both comprehensive and reasonably parsimonious with factors labeled Callousness, Grandiosity, Domineering, Manipulation, Suspiciousness, Aggression, and Risk Taking. The present findings demonstrate how trait Antagonism unfolds at varying levels of specificity as well as how the emergent factors differentially relate to outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The Capone hypothesis: Do antagonistic individuals view themselves as more good than evil?

Article

Jan 2024
PERS INDIV DIFFER

Is "Sadistic Pleasure" a Contrived Process of Signaling One's Antagonism?

Article

Feb 2023
J PERS

Introduction: Sadistic pleasure presumably incorporates processes that support an authentic enjoyment of others' pain. However, antagonism confirmation theory, grounded in social-psychological theorizing on identity maintenance and the notion of ego-syntonicity, suggests that individuals higher in sadism report greater pleasure in response to others' pain because such reports are immoral responses that confirm their self-views. This alternative conception has yet to be tested. Method: In two preregistered experiments (total N = 968), participants completed measures of sadism, read about situations involving others' pain, and rated their pleasure. We manipulated the extent to which pleasure from others' pain could be used to signal morality or antagonism. Results: We found that relatively sadistic people indicated greater pleasure across the studies but, like relatively non-sadistic people, they altered their pleasure ratings to signal greater morality or less antagonism. Conclusions: The findings fail to support antagonism confirmation theory, but they support recent perspectives on sadism which suggest that sadistic people may occasionally care about seeming moral (or not seeming antagonistic) and that sadism may be somewhat ego-dystonic in this respect.

Exploring a Vulnerable Side to Dark Personality: People with Some Dark Triad Features are Gullible and Show Dysfunctional Trusting

Article

May 2021
PERS INDIV DIFFER

Although people higher in “Dark Triad” (DT) constructs are known for manipulating and distrusting others, a few studies suggest these people might also be easy targets for manipulation and differentiate less between trustworthy and untrustworthy sources. Here, we explored whether DT constructs might each contain facets that relate positively to gullibility and tendencies toward “dysfunctional trusting;” dysfunctional trusting was defined as lesser trust in benign authorities or greater trust in strangers. Participants completed multi-faceted measures of DT constructs, an index of gullibility, self-reported their trust in benign authorities and strangers, and self-reported their social intelligence. At least one facet of each DT construct related positively to gullibility and at least one facet of Machiavellianism or psychopathy related positively to trust in strangers. These effects were mediated by lower social intelligence. Excluding narcissism, each DT construct contained at least one facet that related negatively to trust in benign authorities. These effects were not mediated by social intelligence. The findings contribute to understanding how people higher in DT constructs are at risk for poor decisions and being manipulated.

Human evil: The myth of pure evil and the true causes of violence.

Chapter